Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pixel Perfect

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 142 posts

Re: Pixel Perfect

#111

Post by Flenser »

jmitcheson wrote: post #37

It's a shame Google Chrome still doesn't render CSS3 fonts correctly on Windows. The strangest thing about it is that they barely even seem to acknowledge that it's an issue. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8950164/horrible-renderin... If you've noticed that web fonts look terrible on Windows / Chrome, please star these issues! http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=137692 http://code.google.com/p/chro…

As elktea said, this will be fixed with DirectWrite support. This is the issue you need to star: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=25541

Re: Pixel Perfect

#112

Post by ZeroGravitas »

foxhill wrote: post #110
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It surprises me. The upvotes and downvotes are gif images, so all you're seeing is a blown up gif. I'm just in the process of replacing similar triangular gifs with near identical looking Unicode characters precisely so that it will look better on mobile devices that make more use of zoom. And in my experience (on iphone, iPad and Android phones and tablets, though admittedly not the new retina MBP) the current gifs…

you can include "hi-dpi" versions of images, which a retina-display device will search for, before searching for the original image, e.g upvote.gif will cause safari to check for upvote@2x.gif (or something like that - i can't remember the specifics) assuming HN follows this convention (and given the number of iOS/OS X users on here, i would be surprised if it didn't), then he will be receiving the high-resolution im…

Once again, I find myself surprised by someone's lack of surprise. Do you really think Hacker News uses hi-dpi images? My mind would be blown if it turned out it did. The HTML here is very old-school.

Note also, that the zooming that is done on mobile browsers, and (as I understand it on most modes for the retina MBP) doesn't simply multiply by 2 like native apps on the iPad/Phone so even if you provided a double resolution image then it would be unlikely for it to be displayed "pixel perfect", but the increased resolution (in image and screen) would help to hide any resizing artefacts better. That's why using Unicode characters is a better idea, when possible, as they are vector and scale nicely, particularly so on high-dpi devices.

Re: Pixel Perfect

#113

Post by stinnyfregs »

Gruber's full of shit. I had a 1600x1200 17" monitor in the 90s. LCDs were a step back in pixel density, and retina means they're JUST NOW catching up to where I was 15 years ago.

Re: Pixel Perfect

#114

Post by silverlake »

kenjackson wrote: post #55

I'm probably just blind, but I have trouble seeing the difference in display quality based on resolution. And I don't think I'm alone. When I was at the Apple Store after they launched the new iPad, there were several people who confused the iPad 2 for the new iPad. And even after being shown they were looking at the wrong one didn't go, "Oh... this one looks much better!", rather I heard from multiple people a line…

I was just looking at the Retina display vs. regular display at the Apple store. I've also compared an iPad v3 next to a v1. An iPhone 4 next to a 3G. My eyesight is better than 20/20 (yay laser surgery!). I honestly can't see an appreciable difference. Pictures do look better, sure. My current screen has a 140DPI. Text and windows for reading and development are fine, and I often use tiny fonts. I don't see the hype.

Re: Pixel Perfect

#115

Post by StavrosK »

foxhill wrote: post #110
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It surprises me. The upvotes and downvotes are gif images, so all you're seeing is a blown up gif. I'm just in the process of replacing similar triangular gifs with near identical looking Unicode characters precisely so that it will look better on mobile devices that make more use of zoom. And in my experience (on iphone, iPad and Android phones and tablets, though admittedly not the new retina MBP) the current gifs…

you can include "hi-dpi" versions of images, which a retina-display device will search for, before searching for the original image, e.g upvote.gif will cause safari to check for upvote@2x.gif (or something like that - i can't remember the specifics) assuming HN follows this convention (and given the number of iOS/OS X users on here, i would be surprised if it didn't), then he will be receiving the high-resolution im…

Why not just check?

http://ycombinator.com/images/grayarrow@2x.gif

It doesn't.

Re: Pixel Perfect

#116

Post by griffindy »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #27

I find it quite surprising that the author is so passionate about typefaces, but serves his own blog in Verdana. Good thing it is not called JaringJireJall.net [1] That being said, I really think the days of sans fonts are close to over. 10 years from now, we will all be reading on 300 dpi screens and taste in typography will return to being the dominate feature of design. I can't wait until I can read the Economist…

not to be too pedantic, but The New Yorker uses Caslon, which while gorgeous and second in my mind only to Garamond, is a rather old type face and is widely used because it is 1) very readable, and (possibly more importantly) 2) uses a lot less ink than other similar type faces

Re: Pixel Perfect

#117

Post by mgcross »

kenjackson wrote: post #55

I'm probably just blind, but I have trouble seeing the difference in display quality based on resolution. And I don't think I'm alone. When I was at the Apple Store after they launched the new iPad, there were several people who confused the iPad 2 for the new iPad. And even after being shown they were looking at the wrong one didn't go, "Oh... this one looks much better!", rather I heard from multiple people a line…

You can't see the difference in text, particularly small text? Nytimes.com for example, is much harder for me to read on my wife's iPad 1 vs my new iPad or nexus 7. Comparing photos, I don't notice the resolution so much as the increased color gamut.

Re: Pixel Perfect

#118

Post by frou_dh »

stinnyfregs wrote: post #113

Gruber's full of shit. I had a 1600x1200 17" monitor in the 90s. LCDs were a step back in pixel density, and retina means they're JUST NOW catching up to where I was 15 years ago.

That's incorrect. MBPs were available with better density than your figure starting 5 years ago (1920x1200 @ 17"). I have one from 2009 and it continues to be a joy.

Re: Pixel Perfect

#119

Post by tsieling »

SCdF wrote: post #15

So more pixels is great. Is it really that great? I feel like there are people who look at their devices and people who look at what's displayed on their devices. For me, text is text is text. I'm looking at it, not so I can enjoy how crisp it is (or isn't), but so I can consume those words and get them inside my head. I find (I've played around with high DPI devices) that while they do look nice, the niceness is qui…

> For me, text is text is text.

But legibility changes any and all text, and a better display means better legibility (or at least the potential for it). Like mattresses and office chairs, I believe in investing in screens given how many raw hours of my life and attention are given to them.

Re: Pixel Perfect

#120

Post by bluthru »

silverlake wrote: post #114
kenjackson wrote: post #55

I'm probably just blind, but I have trouble seeing the difference in display quality based on resolution. And I don't think I'm alone. When I was at the Apple Store after they launched the new iPad, there were several people who confused the iPad 2 for the new iPad. And even after being shown they were looking at the wrong one didn't go, "Oh... this one looks much better!", rather I heard from multiple people a line…

I was just looking at the Retina display vs. regular display at the Apple store. I've also compared an iPad v3 next to a v1. An iPhone 4 next to a 3G. My eyesight is better than 20/20 (yay laser surgery!). I honestly can't see an appreciable difference. Pictures do look better, sure. My current screen has a 140DPI. Text and windows for reading and development are fine, and I often use tiny fonts. I don't see the hype…

>Text and windows for reading and development are fine, and I often use tiny fonts. I don't see the hype.

That's because you're looking at elements hinted for and designed for a blocky pixel grid. Try rendering a typeface designed for print, and the difference is night and day.

There is no hype. Until displays can go toe-to-toe with print, we have a long way to go. Hold a magazine or a book up next to a standard-resolution display (with the same body font!) to illustrate how inept standard-resolution displays are.

Post reply on HN